Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

Arthur Crabtree wrote:Can they be sure it's only limited to Yorks? It was associated with them because there was a whistleblower, but there have been racist incidents at other counties. Including Essex.

Yes, I think all 18 counties have had complainants and it'd be very strange if Yorkshire was the only one where things get out of hand. Disproportionate action by the ECB would aet a dangerous precedent.

captaincolly wrote:Yes, I think all 18 counties have had complainants and it'd be very strange if Yorkshire was the only one where things get out of hand. Disproportionate action by the ECB would aet a dangerous precedent.

Yorkshire is such a bad case because (a) it was institutionalized at every level of the club (b) their response to provable accusations was shambolic. Of course, if someone else comes out and demonstrates other clubs have this culture, then every club should be treated the same.

The most difficult thing though is deciding what is relevant in the modern day. I mean, county cricket has had a lot of players over the decades come in from other countries... I know from the documentary "Fires of Babylon" that a few West Indies greats give examples of racism they were subjected to in playing in England, and lets be honest, I would fully expect things that nowadays would have been outrageous were probably common place decades ago. But does racism from the 1970s/80/90s maybe even 2000s feel relevant now?

It feels like a lot of behaviour that was commonplace and mainstream accepted in other eras would be considered now, so while I welcome anyone subjected to racism in any era be given a forum to speak about it, you cant use that as an example of how clubs are now, and cant use that as a measure of a culture that exists currently.

Id think up to a certain point in time in culture, very few people if any would pass a modern test whether their actions or words were racist. I grew up where certain words,phrase or what not that you cant even print now in papers without **** were commonplace.

There have always been problems when trying to compare what is acceptable today with what was acceptable in the past, even the fairly recent past. Is there a mechanism for some sort of statute of limitations regarding complaints whilst still allowing historical complaints to be acknowledged in some way?

they're all historical, of course, but hopefully you know what I mean

Racism was always unacceptable in many places and minds all through my lifetime, even if it went unchallenged elsewhere. Is it ok to allow people who were 'historically' racist to decide when and where it was ok? We're talking about adults here, not playgrounds. People who were racist always knew that there was an alternate approach that many others took but they chose not to. They didn't call it woke, but they still derided it in other words.

Yorkshire now reinstated as a venue for international matches. Which averts a financial crash, even if only in the short term. So they will have actually not lost any games.

Arthur Crabtree wrote:Yorkshire now reinstated as a venue for international matches. Which averts a financial crash, even if only in the short term. So they will have actually not lost any games.

So their punishment in the end was... nothing?

Sounds about right. Nothing to see here chaps.

Dobell asking pertinent questions contrasting Durham and Yorkshire's treatment.
https://www.thecricketer.com/Topics/cou ... urham.html

sussexpob wrote:

Arthur Crabtree wrote:Yorkshire now reinstated as a venue for international matches. Which averts a financial crash, even if only in the short term. So they will have actually not lost any games.

So their punishment in the end was... nothing?

Sounds about right. Nothing to see here chaps.

I rarely leave comments on articles that I read (this board excepted, of course) but when I read an article saying that the international ban had been lifted from Yorkshire 3 months after it had been imposed, I questioned whether it was really lifted 4 months before it was imposed

westoelad wrote:Dobell asking pertinent questions contrasting Durham and Yorkshire's treatment.
https://www.thecricketer.com/Topics/cou ... urham.html

that'll go straight into the ECB's B1N file

westoelad wrote:Dobell asking pertinent questions contrasting Durham and Yorkshire's treatment.
https://www.thecricketer.com/Topics/cou ... urham.html

Is Dobell the only person in English cricket who has any journalistic integrity left? We disagreed on the Durham punishment, but yes....it's not fair that Yorkshire brushes this under the carpet, while Durham served a punishment that was (rightly imo) severe.

They hired an Asian guy and that was it? Everything solved? Total rubbish.

sussexpob wrote:

westoelad wrote:Dobell asking pertinent questions contrasting Durham and Yorkshire's treatment.
https://www.thecricketer.com/Topics/cou ... urham.html

Is Dobell the only person in English cricket who has any journalistic integrity left? We disagreed on the Durham punishment, but yes....it's not fair that Yorkshire brushes this under the carpet, while Durham served a punishment that was (rightly imo) severe.

They hired an Asian guy and that was it? Everything solved? Total rubbish.

Bostock's take on Dobell's call is interesting
https://www.thecricketer.com/Topics/cou ... _2016.html
However,I think Dobell is more interested in Graves, when he clearly had a financial interest ,having input into the matter rather than the severity of the actual punishment.
It's now history,Graves has gone, Durham regularly stage 1 day internationals,move on.
As to sanctions upon Yorkshire,none can be fairly imposed until ECB's own disciplinary committee have concluded their findings.

311st March Yorkies EGM.
Yorkshire members give in to blackmail and test cricket goes ahead at Headingley

ECB have charged Yorkshire and 7 un-named players, thought to be MPV, Brezza, Gale, Hoggard, Ballance, Pyrah and John Blain, with bringing the game into disrepute relating to the use of racist or discriminatory language

All no longer playing.